minimum posts to send a pm would cut some spam and scams

Over the last few months while digging up the dirt on spams,scams and dupe accounts i have noticed a (bug) error in the vb system and that is members with zero posts do not show up in the members list and are free to send a pm scam or spam and cannot be found to be banned as they are not listed as members on the member list.

this happened with a scammer using a cloned account of Disguised (real member) that took over 2 weeks to catch online in the who's online listing, as that is the only time you can see them and get a link to their profile Disquised (the cloned account) because they are not listed in the member list until they make a 1st post. only after catching the clone online and getting his profile link then sending a pm to Crazy_Rob was this clone and scammer banned, but not before he scammed 5 members.

looking at this post in S&F If This Isn't A Link Scam I Don't Know What Is!
the first two listed have never made a post and are not listed in the member listing and if you cant find them, then mods cant ban them.

i feel that there should be a minimum of 7 days and 10 posts before you can send a pm, this would give us 7 days to uncover a clone before they can use the pm system to try and scam unsuspecting members. and give us a full member listing with links to profiles of spammers in action.

i am guessing that a dupe account with no posts can never be found or traced either, and as DP is hot on dupe accounts, then i guess we need this to forced them into the open or remove their pm rights

the merits and advantages of this suggestion far outweigh the reasons against it, as i cannot think of one good reason not to do this

 

Seems like an excellent idea to me. I get tons of spam PMs from complete newbies...

 

i think 7 days and 10 posts would fit with the 7 days to post in the the website review forum, this was to stop spamming websites

 

Yupp.. That's a good Idea but days would be 5 and posts would be 15 according to me.

 

i am in total agreement with sammie, however, i think the same rules you face using the BST area should also apply to PM's and new members.

 

I had previously thought of this idea, so I agree.

 

well lets keep it simple and make it the same as one we already have, in place. that way its not an extra rule to remember and quote when asked "why cant i..."

its just adding a few extra words to a rule already in place.
most suggestions are turned down because of a lack of reason or need, but with mods and members lacking the ability to see cloned accounts on the members lists and in posts on the forum, this makes it so easy for a cloned account to scam members, because thats the only reason to clone an account.

if you force everyone to post before they can pm, you take away the advantage to the clone and give it to the members who can spot and report a clone as soon as they make a post. while doing this we also put a stop to the pm spam from people that have not made any posts and can not be found in the members list by members or mods to be banned.

 

I agree that using existing numbers would likely ease the implementation of such an idea. That is the shortest limiting numbers right? If it is, then I'm all for it myself.

 

that is the smallest limit, 10 posts and 7 days, the next one is 14 days and 25 posts which i think is to much, we just need to have 5-10 posts and a few days for members to spot them.

as in the screenshot you can see that the clone account is not listed in the members list still,

i wonder how many clone/dupe/spam account show up once they are forced to make posts to send pm's?

i am guessing that a dupe account with no posts can never be found or traced either, and as DP is hot on dupe accounts, then i guess we need this to forced them into the open or remove their pm rights

 

I could actually care less about whether or not someone is a duplicate. I just know of all the crap I've had in my inbox, the better majority of it comes from people with bright green names. I think that adding the limit will cut down on a lot of it, but certainly not stop it, but heh, deterring scams and spam even a little bit IMHO is well worth the effort.

 

i think you missed the point, bright green is the zero post count, not for filled the requirements for full member rights and privileges to post in all forums. but don't need to to spam via pm

 

Does it matter if I missed it I'm agreeing ain't I

But no, I didn't really miss your point, my reasons for agreeing are just slightly different. I still support the change.

 

Good thought, Ive actually seen more of these that haven't been reported

 

it's hard to report someone you cant find, and it is imposable for Mods to ban someone they can't see listed. i reported that Diquised clone to mods but they couldnt see him to ban him, only when he was seen online and the url to his profile was clicked and sent to Crazy_Rob could he be banned

 

A few things don't add up for me here, so I have some questions.

1. If this is done through the PM system, how do you know about it ?
2. Why would members be banned without an administrator or moderator looking at the actual private messages in question ?
3. If the messages are being looked at, why aren't the administrators/moderators aware they can get any information like member ids they need to ban a zero-post member from the message itself ?
4. Is there somthing done here at DP that prevents the sending members info from being displayed when you read the message ?

I understand what you're trying to accomplish, but putting restrictions like the ones suggested on private messages just seems like it will hamper more than help.

It's one of those fine line between security & reality issues.

 

sammie???

i know you eat this shit up.

 

my replies in bold

 

That just looks like a problem with people not reporting things to the proper people. It's tougher to tend to an issue when you have to keep an eye on the riot posting things like that in public starts.

Untill a member has made a bad post, or bad PM, technically they're not a problem.

How do you know people aren't just going to start using anonymous proxies to make a few decent posts to stay under the radar, then go on to their real motive once the coast is clear ?

Last I knew Vbullitin recorded an IP on registration anyways, someone has access to it.

Ask the person who complains to click on the persons name in the PM they recieved, then copy & paste the profile link from the menu that pops up.


My biggest issue with a restriction is this, people who want to ask legitimate questions about what may be a time-sensitive issue privately whould be forced to be distracted by other threads just for the ability to ask their question.
That's where the hampering comes in. It's also got the potential to get alot more "OMFG LOL !!!111" posts made just to meet the requirement.

Educating people is ALOT more effective than trying to controll every aspect of their lives in an attemot to protect them.

 

try and post "omfg lol" on this forum and see what happens.

i dont care what level it is set at, as long as they are forced to make a few posts before they are allowed to send pm's a post count of 5 in one day is enough, as long as they make posts before they can send pm's

a clone has little chance of being found if no-one can find them on the member list, that clone scammed 5 people before he was caught online in the who's online section of the main page. because no-one could find the clone on the members list, not even the mods

the people that matter are the members already, new members would just see it as a rule they have to wait for, like posting in the BST forum or the website review forum.
they can ask questions in both, but not start threads.